I just had a look at the script itself and that is how it works. Still, how much information does this lose? I have no idea - you would have to have a look at the algorithms for mp3 and ogg to work out what each captures and loses. It may still be in the transfer there is little loss to get worried about (the mp3 to wav product may just be exactly what ogg captures anyway). I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who might know.
At any rate, I couldn't come across a file where I could distinguish between one or the other by ear which was the only test that needed to satisfy me. I only converted a dozen or so files of some music that I had from a group whose music I can't get in oz though - the rest I ripped straight from my CD's to ogg format, so I haven't really tried it out thoroughly.
Dan
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 07:53:51 +0100, Dave Cross <dave@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 02:32:31PM +1000, Daniel Stonier wrote:
It could be that the script identifies all the information in an mp3 file and just translates that just as you might translate a book. If it does this there'd be next to no degradation at all.
But that's not what the script does. It plays the mp3 file and stores the output as a wav file. It then re-encodes that wav file into an ogg file.
This is a terrible idea. The mp3 file is a lossy representation of the original sound and when you re-encode it to ogg you're just adding to the loss.
Dave...
-- email:snorri_dj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://members.optusnet.com.au/stonierd/
